Search

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are noncombustible tobacco products that have been promoted as safer alternatives to conventional cigarettes and beneficial tools for smoking cessation. However, e-cigarettes have been shown to produce aerosols with high concentrations of propylene glycol, glycerol, volatile organic compounds, and free radicals, which can lead to lung damage. Furthermore, e-cigarettes can deliver nicotine at concentrations higher than traditional combustibles, making them highly addictive. As delivery devices became smaller, less expensive, and refillable, the use of e-cigarettes dramatically increased, especially among adolescents and young adults in the United States. This rise in popularity of noncombustible products led to an outbreak of e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) in the fall of 2019. In this article, we review the history of e-cigarettes and its prevalence among American youth, the EVALI outbreak and clinical presentation of EVALI patients, and recent legislative efforts to regulate e-cigarette use., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In health, the airways are lined by a layer of protective mucus gel that sits atop a watery periciliary fluid. Mucus is an adhesive, viscoelastic gel, the biophysical properties of which are largely determined by entanglements of long polymeric gel-forming mucins, MUC5AC and MUC5B. This layer entraps and clears bacteria and inhibits bacterial growth and biofilm formation. It also protects the airway from inhaled irritants and from fluid loss. In diseases such as cystic fibrosis there is almost no mucin (and thus no mucus) in the airway; secretions consist of inflammatory-cell derived DNA and filamentous actin polymers, which is similar to pus. Retention of this airway pus leads to ongoing inflammation and airway damage. Mucoactive medications include expectorants, mucolytics, and mucokinetic drugs. Expectorants are meant to increase the volume of airway water or secretion in order to increase the effectiveness of cough. Although expectorants, such as guaifenesin (eg, Robatussin or Mucinex), are sold over the counter, there is no evidence that they are effective for the therapy of any form of lung disease, and when administered in combination with a cough suppressant such as dextromethorphan (the "DM" in some medication names) there is a potential risk of increased airway obstruction. Hyperosmolar saline and mannitol powder are now being used as expectorants in cystic fibrosis. Mucolytics that depolymerize mucin, such as N-acetylcysteine, have no proven benefit and carry a risk of epithelial damage when administered via aerosol. DNA-active medications such as dornase alfa (Pulmozyme) and potentially actin-depolymerizing drugs such as thymosin beta(4) may be of value in helping to break down airway pus. Mucokinetic agents can increase the effectiveness of cough, either by increasing expiratory cough airflow or by unsticking highly adhesive secretions from the airway walls. Aerosol surfactant is one of the most promising of this class of medications.

As the first paper in this Journal Conference on intensive care unit controversies, the editors wished us to set the tone for the debate by discussing the ethics of medical "adventurism" in the intensive care unit. More life-or-death decisions are made in the intensive care unit than elsewhere in the hospital, and the critical care specialist often sees himself or herself as a warrior in a battle with death. This adrenaline-charged calling attracts highly intelligent, hard-working, and compassionate caregivers, as well as fiercely independent clinicians. The result of this is that critical care specialists passionately debate about the meaning and application of published "evidence" and this leads to thoughtful debate, as exemplified by the papers in this and the next issue of Respiratory Care, as well as thoughtless and often dangerous disregard for evidence-based medicine. Physicians are morally obligated to provide the best and most appropriate care possible for their patients, but when accepted approaches are failing and a critically ill patient is getting worse, the critical care physician must make a decision regarding innovative therapy, based on the patient's prognosis, the available evidence, the resources on hand, the expertise of the physicians, and the values of the patient and the physician. This decision may lead, at times, to trying unproven and innovative strategies to achieve a clinical goal. In such cases, it is to be hoped that this can be done in such a way that data are formally and prospectively collected to increase our knowledge.